There are no conclusions

Mina Martini wrote, in the "Is it the same" thread:"If they could only realise the truth when they were not in that duality then it had no meaning to talk of it", you say. -That, for me, sounds like a conclusion, an idea.

Perhaps this point should be cleared up first.

Or perhaps there is no point to clear up, since you say "That sounds for me like a conclusion" (which is just as much a conclusion, or not, as my original statement!) So seen as merely a thought which came to you, there is nothing to respond to, no matter of argument. You had a thought, full stop.

Or, it is a statement, following a perception perhaps, which is offered up to in communication, in dialogue, for possible investigation. It is this dialogue, this investigation/enquiry, for which the forum exists. And my original statement, and ALL my statements, are offered in that light.

And whether my thoughts/perceptions/ideas/suggestions are phrased as questions, or phrased as statements, like this one, there are ALL open to question. They are all tentative (although they may not appear so at the time). As soon as something is uttered, manifested, I myself at least can, and do, look at it, question it. It not something that is identified with. Or if it is, unconsciously, THAT can be enquired into.

So are we clear on that? There are no conclusions, at least on my side. Everything can be questioned, enquired into. If it is not clear, then there is no point in continuing with this thread, or continuing with ANY thread in fact, since everything degenerates into mere argument, or even accusation.

As long as you ask questions you are breaking through, but the moment you begin to accept, you are psychologically dead. So right through life don't accept a thing, but inquire, investigate" - K

Clive Elwell wrote:"If you are not certain, find out why and be certain"

..if you waver between ideas of certainty and uncertainty, which is the very nature of duality/self, find out why, find out your true absolute nature beyond the relativity of thought, and be absolutely certain.

This is not about 'somebody drawing conclusions or not', or 'somebody drawing conclusions about the other having conclusions or not', (even more complicated :-) ) this is, about the 'somebody' being a conclusion already. That is the light in which the word was used in my reply. It would have been the same to say for instance: Limitation created by thought is perceived in what you say. (by 'you' i do not mean any thought of you).

(If there is any 'help' we can offer each other and ourselves inseparably, it is in the clear perception of ourselves/another and in the sharing of that perception together as one!)

So, it is not that there is a self that may or may not draw limited conclusions out of limited thought, but that without ANY psychological conclusion, there exists no psychological reality, no self.

So, if there really are no conclusions, as is the title of your thread, there is no psychological thought to begin with.

Or, in other words, if EVERYTHING is questioned, as you say, no psychological knowledge (conclusion included) can survive, because the questioner cannot survive but only in a divided state which never includes, never questions everything. Something is always left out for an observer separate from the observed to exist. In fact, it is the observer that is left out, not seen fully, for the psychological reality to exist.

I say that psychological conclusion is the observer itself, because I see conclusion as thought deriving more thought out of itself, as a continuation of itself, in division from itself as thinker and thought. This is what I call conclusion. So, conclusion is continuation, cause and effect as separate, and if we can come together without ANY conclusion about anything, we truly come together without anything between us, without any belief/conclusion concerning our selves/the other, so without either 'you' or 'me' as images, coming in the way!

Mina Martini wrote at #3:find out your true absolute nature beyond the relativity of thought

What IS “your true absolute nature beyond the relativity of thought”, in the light of there being NO “ONE”, in the light of “me/you/one” being an illusion?

So, IS there NO “one/me”? Or IS there a “one” but which is not the “one/me” we have been taking for granted? If “you/me” exists only within thought, that “me/you/one” cannot have an absolute nature, can it? Thought is not absolute, is it? There are things beyond thought.

We are talking about “me” which is psychological in nature. Is there a “true me” beyond the psyche, a “true me” which has a “true nature” beyond thought?

There is a living being, a human being. That human being has feelings, thoughts, emotions, a physical and psychological structure. That human being feels or “has” fear, anger, hate, jealousy, pleasure, happiness, thoughts, beliefs, conclusions, ideas, ideals, sadness, contempt, conceit, compassion, love, empathy, joy, beauty, pain. That human being has awareness. All “that” is the human being, isn’t it? Some of “that” is rooted in thought, some of it is not. It is constantly changing. It is not fixed or static, is it? One moment, it is “this”, and the next moment, it is “that”. What IS “my” true absolute nature in view of that ever-changing living landscape of experiencing? Or is there only “what is” in each moment?

Should the fleeting "me" that is in this moment reject itself and look for its true nature?

So, we are going to enquire into the
absolute - something that's really
marvellous. Not a reward. You can't
take it home and say, 'I'll use it'.

Mina Martini wrote at #4:this is, about the 'somebody' being a conclusion already.

Isn’t there an actual distinction between “conclusion”, “illusion” and “belief”, just as there is a distinction between “idea”, “theory” and “desire”? Conclusion is not illusion, just as theory is not desire. They are all within the field of thought and they might sometimes overlap, but isn’t it important to understand and acknowledge the distinctions if we are to understand each other?

I don’t out of the blue and without forethought come to a conclusion regarding something. Isn’t conclusion arrived at through reasoning, whether it be sane reasoning or not? Whereas illusion is a trick of the mind caused by conditioning, fever or artifice. No?

The mind realizes that it is being tricked when it sees the illusionist saw his assistant in half. But the mind which has been conditioned from birth to think that there is “me” separate from everything else that is “not-me”, does not realize it is being tricked. To the conditioned mind, is self an unquestioned illusion or is it a thought-out conclusion?

The mind did not conclude that there is “me”. Wasn't it educated in and moulded to that illusion? And is this mind - which now thinks it has seen the illusory nature of the “me” - not now seeking a new form of “me”, a higher, better form of “me”, a “me” which is one with the totality?

Do you see, are you aware of the
truth of it, and thereby dependency
ceases? Or have you an idea about the
fact? Here is a statement of truth. Do
we experience the truth of it, or do
we create an idea about it?

If we can understand the process of
this creation of idea, then we shall
perhaps understand the whole process
of effort. Because when once we have
created the idea, then effort comes
into being.

Huguette:What IS “your true absolute nature beyond the relativity of thought”, in the light of there being NO “ONE”, in the light of “me/you/one” being an illusion?

Mina: The absolute nature is exactly in being no one, in the absence of a relative idea of oneself as an image of 'someone'.

Huguette:>So, IS there NO “one/me”? Or IS there a “one” but which is not the “one/me” we have been taking for granted? If “you/me” exists only within thought, that “me/you/one” cannot have an absolute nature, can it? Thought is not absolute, is it? There are things beyond thought.

Mina: This is absolutely clear. Have never been talking about 'true nature' or 'absolute nature' as anything that can be a creation of limited relative thought.

Huguette:>We are talking about “me” which is psychological in nature. Is there a “true me” beyond the psyche, a “true me” which has a “true nature” beyond thought?

Mina: Of course not. Is this not clear? True nature is 'no me', no 'true me', or 'untrue me', or any other image of oneself.

Mina Martini wrote:Huguette:>We are talking about “me” which is psychological in nature. Is there a “true me” beyond the psyche, a “true me” which has a “true nature” beyond thought?

Mina: Of course not. Is this not clear? True nature is 'no me', no 'true me', or 'untrue me', or any other image of oneself.

Then why say it's 'your' true nature? Or 'our' true nature? If no one owns truth, there's just truth, right? It's not 'my' truth or 'your' truth. In a moment of insight or understanding, it's not 'my' intelligence or insight or awareness. As one of our members used to say, "There's no 'you' in awareness." So why claim it's 'my' true nature...or 'your' true nature? It's no one's true nature, right? It just is...to be lived. Sorry, but I find all these "absolute true nature" assertions questionable....misleading.

Mina Martini wrote:(If there is any 'help' we can offer each other and ourselves inseparably, it is in the clear perception of ourselves/another and in the sharing of that perception together as one!)

My understanding of the forum, and of relationship is general, is the sharing (I regretted using the word "help" as soon as I typed it, yet I let it ride, foolishly perhaps, I will drop it now) of enquiry. That enquiry, to me, necessarily includes not only of clear perception but of our confusion also. It involves the perception of ourselves as not one, also. It is concerned with the seeing of ourselves as we actually are, as part of a divided, fragmented human consciousness, and in fact all aspects of what is.

You may come back with talk of out "true nature", beyond limited thought and image, as you often do, but for me this is not helpful into enquiry. For me it remains at the level of mere assertion, unless one can go (perhaps together) through the preliminary work. But no, I am not happy with that preliminary, it seems to imply starting with a conclusion. Let us say the necessary work, the work that faces us.

Mina Martini wrote:It would have been the same to say for instance: Limitation created by thought is perceived in what you say. (by 'you' i do not mean any thought of you).

This for me is an example of what I said earlier:

I start to get the impression, Mina, that you keep saying that all words are invalid - except your own.

There is limitation in all thought, not just in what I say. It is absolutely intrinsic to all thought. And that includes thought as expressed by you (ok, not implying any separation between you and thought. This in fact is an example of the limitation of thought, it seems it always implies a separate thinker). But one gets the impression that you do not see this limitation acting in yourself, when you make your pronouncements, apparently from beyond thought.

But as I have said several times, I cannot know “what is” for you. What state you exist in. You may come back and say “there is no me”, which I can understand. But all I see is the necessity of enquiring, not asserting, not speculating. I know there is nothing easier than tearing other people's words apart, since yes, all words are limited, and one can always focus on what was NOT said, not expressed. If there is not the willingness to enquire humbly and affectionately together, from a state of not knowing, then I do not know how we can meet.

These things are not easy for me to express, Mina, but feeling in myself the need to say them. And perhaps I am not fully enquiring into your words as I write. As for their truth – how shall we decide?

Clive Elwell wrote:That enquiry, to me, necessarily includes not only of clear perception but of our confusion also. It involves the perception of ourselves as not one, also. It is concerned with the seeing of ourselves as we actually are, as part of a divided, fragmented human consciousness, and in fact all aspects of what is.

Good points! How do we look? Forget the ideal of oneness or undivided lookinng. How are we actually looking...observing? Through the screen of ideas and conclusions? If we are, let's look at THAT....understand that....understand division....not one's 'true nature'. That division is 'what is'...not oneness, 'true nature', or formlessness.

You may come back with talk of out "true nature", beyond limited thought and image, as you often do, but for me this is not helpful into enquiry.

Mina Martini wrote:this is, about the 'somebody' being a conclusion already.

When you say, Mina, that the self is a conclusion, that seems to me to introduce some distortion on the word, or at least using it in a different way from what I did in my first post.

It could be said that thought moves from conclusion to conclusion, but the very fact it moves at all throws doubt on using that word. And thought can, and does, question itself, so where is the conclusion?

The self is the result of registration, is it not? The result of various experiences registered in the brain cells as memory. The activation of a memory (psychological) in the present, with its specific content, gives rise to thought as the thinker. Whereas drawing a conclusion, consciously or unconsciously, is part of the thought process, part of thought's logic.

this is, about the 'somebody' being a conclusion already.
When you say, Mina, that the self is a conclusion, that seems to me to introduce some distortion on the word, or at least using it in a different way from what I did in my first post.

Cluve: It could be said that thought moves from conclusion to conclusion, but the very fact it moves at all throws doubt on using that word. And thought can, and does, question itself, so where is the conclusion?

We assume that there is a fixed 'me' somewhere in consciousness....in 'me....consciousness creates this feeling that there's a separate 'me' somewhere. We take this center....this somebody to be real. Perhaps that's what Mina was pointing to....the identification as 'me' ..as a 'somebody'.
It's not a conclusion of thought that creates this 'me' center however, if that's what you're getting at, Clive. It's not a conclusion in the normal sense of the word.

Clive Elwell wrote:You may come back with talk of out "true nature", beyond limited thought and image, as you often do, but for me this is not helpful into enquiry.

It suddenly came to me, Mina, that I should make something clear; although recently I have been somewhat 'critical' of some of your posts, and have questioned where you are coming from, I am not in any way trying to shut you up. You are of course free to post your perceptions, and I do value the sometimes very different approaches your posts represent. They are a challenge, and we should never turn our back on challenges.